On 31.08-17:52, Thomas Barregren wrote: [ ... ]
The issue original brought up by Jeff Eaton was about the fact that it is not permissible to write modules that bridge software with a license not compatible with GPL. [ ... ] You surprise me. GPL has been around for *18 years* and this reciprocity (a.k.a. "copyleft") is the very heart of the license. [ ... ] Wrong. You are allowed to integrate GPL-application with any non-GPL application.
i believe you contradict yourself. the issue is the extension of GPL to include interfacing software, as below [ ... ]
* to study and modify the program.
--unless, of course, you want to bridge it with a non-GPL application, apparently.
Wrong. You are allowed to study and modify the program for any reason, including for the purpose of bridging it with non-GPL application. [ ... ]
So, to solve the problem that the licensing of Drupal currently force us to "dumbing down" or "bypassing of established application methodologies", I suggest that the Drupal licensing is supplemented with an exception for module developers linking through hooks.
if you are allowed to study and modify the program for the purpose of bridging it with non-GPL code then there is no cross pollination of the licenses. this has traditionally been done (i.e. the use of GPL'd header files in compilation) but often brought under question by more aggressive GPL proponents. i think the original author is confused about the exact status of GPL, especially, in relation to something like hooks where, it would appear to me, there is no issue. essentially, i see no reason you could not interface an application using hooks and keep that application propiertory. i am still unclear as to how this may be effected by GPLv3.